Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Irish Historical Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
and times of the Rt Hon. Henry Grattan by his son Henry Grattan (5 vols, London,
was established in 1782' (Francis Hardy, Memoirs of the political and private life of
James Caulfield, earl of Charlemont (2nd ed., 2 vols, 1812), ii, 202.
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
170
IrishHistoricalStudies
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
171
Irish trading rights and saw Fox make his name as a friend of Ireland.5The
Rockinghamites and Chathamites encouraged Irish agitation when they
saw that this issue was embarrassing the government, and Fox, Burke,
Thomas Townshend and James Adair all lobbied prominent Irish patriots.
They were convinced that it was possible and desirable to foster a union
between the two opposition groups. But Fox and his opposition colleagues
had no detailed knowledge of the system of Irish government, and they overestimated the common ground between British Whigs and Irish patriots.
John Forbes, an Irish patriot M.P.and a correspondent of Adair, argued that,
in spite of the efforts of Fox, Burke and Townshend, the Irish and British
oppositions would 'always stand on different grounds', as 'in Ireland where
no genuine spirit of Whiggism prevails, nor the least idea of a systematic
opposition, an operative or effectual opposition can only originate from a
jealousy conceived against Great Britain at large'.6
Fox and the British opposition parties were ultimately outflanked by the
harassed North ministry when, in December 1779, it conceded a substantial
degree of commercial relief to Ireland. Opposition M.P.s remained silent
when North announced in the Commons his intention to grant trade concessions. Fox claimed that he wanted to wait before giving his approbation
to the concessions until it was clear that the Irish were contented.' But the
Irish opposition, which had been edging closer to its British counterpart,
was far from satisfied with his conduct. Fox, mortified by his sudden unpopularity in Ireland, reassured his Irish friends that the views of the British
opposition had been misrepresented.s Yet Fox's behaviour in 1785, during
the furore over Pitt's commercial propositions, must cast some doubt over
his protestations. Indeed, it is clear that Fox had a fundamental dislike for
new economic theories, and throughout his life he remained wedded to protectionist policies, as was shown by his opposition to Pitt's free trade treaty
with France of 1787.
In a brief analysis of Fox's speeches given in late 1779, Thomas
McLoughlin suggests that his rhetorical style gave away his ultimate goal,
which was to embarrass the North ministry rather than secure concessions
for Ireland. Fox, he says, 'mocks without suggesting remedies', using language 'free of a moral vocabulary'.9There is perhaps something in this, but
whatever the truth of the matter, it is certain that Fox had reservations
about the methods used by Ireland to gain commercial relief. He claimed
that 'the arguments of Pery [Speaker of the Irish Commons] and his crew
consisted of 42,000 bayonets'. This was a reference to Ireland's armed
Volunteer societies. Initially formed for protection against Freach invasion,
5Hehadmadehis firstinterventionin Irishaffairsin the BritishCommonsdebate
of 3 May1769on LordTownshend'sdecisionto proroguethe Irishparliamentafter
the rejectionof a moneybill (B.L.,Eg. MS 222,p. 186).
6[Forbes]to Adair,6 July1780(B.L.,Adairpapers,Add. MS 53802,ff 1-6).
7WilliamCobbett, Parliamentary history of England from...
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
172
IrishHistoricalStudies
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POWELL-
173
"8L.G. Mitchell, Charles James Fox and the disintegration of the Whig Party,
1782-1794(Oxford,1971),p. 12.
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
174
IrishHistoricalStudies
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
175
Fox believed that the British government had to take a stand against the
Volunteers and further concessions. When a separate Irish foreign policy was
mooted,North, supported by Fox, refused to lay imperialpeace treaties before
the Irish parliament.24Fox was also unwilling - despite his campaigning in
Britain - to consider allowing Ireland a degree of parliamentaryreform. He
was alarmed at the increasing clamour out-of-doors in Ireland,insisting that if
'parliamentaryreform, in any shape, however modified, or any other point
claimed by the bishop of Derry and the Volunteers, be conceded, Ireland is
irretrievablylost forever'.25He protested:'Did they not make that very round
in 1782,and did not England make that ample and correspondent concession,
for the direct and avowed purpose of precluding the necessity of future
demands and concessions?' Fox believed 'that a proper spirit exerted now, is
the only possible chance of saving us from a total separation, or civil war'.26
This is clearly another example of a situation in which Fox placed his
concern for Britain's parliamentary supremacy over Ireland above his
reformist zeal.
Fox, despite his general empathy with Ireland, was frustrated by the
unceasing demands made by the Irish parliament. Although he had held an
Irish sinecure himself until 1775, the clerkship of the pells, he also succumbed to the commonplace prejudices against Ireland's supposedly rapacious politicians. He had sympathy for Northington, 'situated as you are
among Irishmen who next to a job for themselves love nothing so well as a
job for their country'. The demands of the country as a whole were, in his
view, simply an extension of the selfish ambitions of individuals such as the
notorious place-hunter John Hely-Hutchinson:
Irelandappearsto me now to be like one of hermosteminentjobberswho afterhaving obtainedthe primeserjeancy,the secretaryshipof state and twentyother great
places,insisteduponthe l[or]dlieu[tenan]t'saddinga major'shalf pay to the rest of
his emoluments.27
This statement demonstrates that Fox shared the view held by many British
commentators that the vast majority of Irish politicians were motivated by
avarice rather than principle. Indeed, despite Fox's Irish family connexions,
he was liable to indulge in more general abuse. After Burke refused to grant
him a final interview Fox lamented: 'I have always found that every
Irishman has a piece of potato in his head.'28His prejudices regarding Irish
jobbery lasted until the year of his death. During the Talents ministry he
warned the lord lieutenant never to forget that he was dealing 'with the
most rapacious and unreasonable people on the face of the earth, the Scotch
themselves not excepted; to be importunate, and successful in jobs is not
their shame but their glory'.29
ff 24-5.
24Ibid.,
25Foxto Burgoyne,7 Nov.1783(Grattan,Grattan,iii, 112).
26Ibid.,
p. 114.
27Foxto Northington,1 Nov.1783(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47567,f. 27).
2Quoted in Hobhouse,Fox,p.237.
dancy(Oxford,1978),p.245.
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
176
IrishHistoricalStudies
This is not to say that a friendly relationship between the British opposition and the Irish patriots disappeared after the 1782 settlement. Relations
remained cordial, but became increasingly strained as the two sides pulled
in different directions. Richard Brinsley Sheridan complained to his brother
Charles, an Irish M.P.:'You are all so void of principle in Ireland that you
cannot enter into our situation.'30However, John Forbes and Sheridan
remained friendly, and Burke was on good terms with Forbes and Francis
Hardy. In July 1784 the radical patriot Sir Edward Newenham claimed that
Fox's popularity in Ireland was recovering,31and Grattan was reputed to
have been well received when he visited Carlton House, home of the prince
of Wales, in 1788.32Even at the height of the unrest in Ireland over parliamentary reform, Fox castigated the viceroy, Northington, for favouring the
traditional supporters of government over the leading members of
Portland's nascent Irish Whig party. Fox warned the viceroy to 'take care
... that you do not strengthen an enemy instead of gaining a friend'.33This
was in spite of the fact that Fox's supposed allies, Grattan, Forbes and
George Ogle, were regularly voting against the government.
James Kelly concludes that 'overall, the authority of the British government in Ireland was in a much healthier position on the fall of the Fox-North
coalition than when it was formed'.34But Fox's role in the Irish government's
success is debatable. He accepted the reality of the 1782 settlement and
staunchly refused to make any further concessions. But if it had not been
for Northington's determination to cultivate capable administrators over
patriots, in other words the rebuilding of the Castle party, the story might
have been very different. Fox was far from comfortable with Northington's
actions. He still had visions of an Irish Whig party, the most prominent
members of which had given ample proof that they were not willing or able
to represent the British government in the Commons.Therefore,although Fox
remained wedded to upholding parliamentary supremacy over Ireland in
principle, his commitment to his friends in the Irish parliament, and his
hostility to what he believed was an overmighty Irish executive, prevented
him from taking any positive action to bolster Britain's interests.
IV
The short-lived Fox-North coalition was replaced by a ministry led by
William Pitt that was far more willing to make further concessions to
Ireland - albeit as part of a rationalisation of imperial economic policy. Fox
rather cynically saw Pitt's trade proposals as an ideal opportunity to cause
30R.B. Sheridan to C. F. Sheridan, [Feb. 1784] (The letters of Richard Brinsley
32Gerard O'Brien, Anglo-Irish politics in the age of Grattan and Pitt (Dublin,
1987),p. 118.
33Foxto Northington,1 Nov.1783(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS 47567,f.27).
34JamesKelly, Prelude to union:Anglo-Irish politics in the 1780s (Cork, 1992), p.74.
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
177
39Cobbett,
Par. hist.,xxv,333 (22 Feb.1785).
pp 593,599 (12 May1785).
4"Ibid.,
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
178
IrishHistoricalStudies
41Ibid.,
pp 689 (24 May 1785),610 (12 May 1785).
42DanielPulteney to duke [of Rutland],24 May [1785] (H.M.C.,Rutland,iii,
208).
43Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxv,778 (30 May 1785).
pp 966 (25 July1785).
44Ibid.,
to W.W.Grenville,2 Mar.1785(H.M.C.,Fortescue,i, 247).
45Mornington
46Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxv,777 (30 May1785).
47Ibid.,
p. 622 (12 May 1785).
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
179
it was unwise to conclude 'that even if their parliament should make a surrender of their legislative independence, the people at large would agree to
it, or remain quiet under such a sacrifice'. He added, with an equal measure
of bitterness and foreboding, that 'there were recent historical facts which
proved that the acquiescence of the Irish House of Commons was not conclusive'.48In this case, however, the Irish Commons forestalled popular outrage by rejecting the propositions. This was a notable triumph for Fox. His
artful stance ensured that he achieved a rare victory over Pitt and secured
the approbation of the British commercial interests without offending the
Irish opposition.
V
The revolutionary 1790s heralded a shift in Fox's views on Ireland.
Following the departure of Portland and the more conservative Whig
grandees in 1794, he was able to adopt a more radical stance without concerning himself with party unity. His relationship with Irish patriotism was
also radically altered. As Grattan and moderate parliamentary patriotism
faded into the background, Fox was drawn closer to a group of Irish radicals,
many of them United Irishmen, dominated by his cousin Lord Edward
Fitzgerald and friend Arthur O'Connor. Ireland's parliamentary patriots
had been alienated by Fox's stance on a number of controversial issues.
First, although he saw in the Regency Crisis an opportunity to remodel the
Irish government, suggesting that it might 'be proper to make what we do
there a model of what we intend to do here when we have the power',49it is
clear that he had reservations over the Irish parliament's determination to
take the initiative on this issue. Fox, in marked contrast to his Irish friends,
argued that the prince of Wales had to be regent of Great Britain before he
accepted the Irish regency. He observed: 'The fact is our friends have gone
too fast in Dublin.'5so
The main cause of disaffection, however, was Fox's shift towards radicalism. As the revolution progressed, and France became more bellicose, Irish
opposition M.P.s and peers began to gravitate towards the government
benches. Fox found it difficult to secure the support of some of his closest
Irish allies following his split with Burke. Grattan insisted that he would not
take sides, but other members of the Irish opposition were less equivocal. In
December 1792 Fox was criticised by Edmund Malone, friend of Lord
Charlemont, for his unrestrained support of parliamentary reform."'
Malone claimed that Fox and Lord Lansdowne,'for the comparatively small
object of assailing ministry ... are driven to try what can be done by inflaming the Catholics of Ireland'.52Ponsonby was also'much dissatisfied with Mr
4Ibid.,p. 694 (24 May 1785).
49Foxto [Portland], 12 Feb. 1789 (B.L., Fox papers, Add. MS 47561, f. 108).
5OFoxto Fitzpatrick, 17 Feb. 1789 (ibid., Add. MS 47580, f. 137).
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
180
IrishHistoricalStudies
4-5).
"6Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxxiii,144 (23 Mar.1797).
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
181
57Quoted in E. A. Smith, Whig principles and party politics: Earl Fitzwilliam and
the Whig Party,1748-1833 (Manchester, 1975), p. 263.
'5Cobbett, Parl. hist., xxxi, 1543 (19 May 1795).
p. 1544.
59Ibid.,
6Ibid.,xxxiii,155,170 (23 Mar.1797).
"1Ibid.,
pp 141-2.
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
182
IrishHistoricalStudies
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
183
There were, therefore, clear signs that Fox saw Irish grievances in the same
light as British campaigners for parliamentary reform and peace with
France. Of course, in the case of the former issue, his version of parliamentary reform, and indeed his interpretation of 'the people', had a very limited
definition, which was essentially aristocratic. He no doubt envisaged little
change in an Irish governing class that was dominated by his friends and
relations in the Protestant landholding e1ite. Nineteenth-century reformers
were quite justified in suspecting that Fox 'had really belonged less to the
people than to his friends'. As J. R. Dinwiddy has argued, his primary concern was the protection of the people's existing rights rather than any kind
of extension.66
Following this outburst there was a hiatus in Fox's public interventions on
behalf of Ireland. He seceded from parliament in May 1797 and did not
attend the Commons debate on the arrest of Arthur O'Connor. It was left
to Sheridan, Sir Francis Burdett and George Tierney to voice the Foxites'
concerns. However, in February 1798 Fox's involvement in Irish affairs
became more personal when O'Connor was put on trial for treason.
O'Connor was represented by the Foxite lawyer Thomas Erskine and
received support in the courtroom from Fox himself, Sheridan and Charles
Grey.Also in attendance were Samuel Whitbread, Lord John Russell, Lord
Thanet, Lord Oxford, Lord Suffolk and Lord Moira. But it is perhaps
unwise to view the Whiggish supporters of O'Connor as an homogeneous
entity. Fox and Grey seemed to have some concerns about testifying. Grey
stated anxiously: 'Nobody I hope who knows us, can suspect either Fox or
myself, or any of those with whom we are most immediately connected on
public principles, of any design hostile to the country, but the generality will
not distinguish.'67
Fox's own evidence was given under subpoena, not freely offered, and in
his testimony he did not touch upon O'Connor's politics. He was eager to
spend as little time as possible at the trial, and appeared to have no sympathy for his fellow Whigs who wished to stay for the whole duration. Fox was,
then, perhaps only guilty of loyalty to his friends. During the trial he wrote
uneasily to Fitzpatrick:'I earnestly hope ... they have got nothing against
him.'68But in the climate of political and social unrest it was understandable
that his enemies should think otherwise. As L. G. Mitchell has argued,'Fox
was not a radical, but contemporaries had good grounds for suspecting that
he was.'69Members of the Irish government certainly connected Fox with
the United Irishmen. Lord Clare relished the 'reversal to all the Foxs,
Sheridans etc' which would result from the practice of offering United
Irishmen pardons if they would inform on their brother members.70Fox's
6Quoted in Stanley Ayling, Fox: the life of Charles James Fox (London, 1991),
p. 199.
Fox,p. 156.
69Mitchell,
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
184
IrishHistoricalStudies
erstwhile friend Edmund Burke claimed that Fox acted 'in concert with and
on the principles of the Jacobins in England and Ireland'. He added:'I know
that O'Connor lived in very close connexion with him and his friends whilst
he stayed in England; I am far from sure, that Keogh is not at this instant in
the same cabal.'71Satirists,most notably James Gillray,viciously lampooned
Fox's friendship with these 'traitors'.In May 1797 The Times openly accused
Fox of inciting rebellion in Ireland.72
It is difficult to judge the degree of Fox's complicity, but it is very unlikely
that he was guilty of treason. Fox had no sympathy with Irish separatism.
Presumably only ties of friendship and kinship prevented him from informing the authorities. Similarly,Wolfe Tone, at least, had no love of Fox. He
attacked the Irish Whig Club for its close relationship with Fox, as 'nothing
short of an indispensable necessity could warrant the volunteering of an
English attachment'.73The extent to which Fox was aware of the United
Irishmen's intentions is unclear. The late 1790s saw Fox frustrated by parliamentary politics and Pitt's unassailable majority.Yet this did not mean
that he was prepared to subvert parliament or encourage revolution. It is
true that in 1797 O'Connor, Fox, Burdett, Erskine and Lord Wycombe corresponded openly about the aims of the United Irishmen. But in the context
of these letters, the aims were principally directed towards radical reform.74
The leaders of the United Irishmen claimed that this was the extent of
Fox's involvement, and that he was not party to their treasonable activities.
But clearly Fox was no fool, and if the testimony of United Irishman
Edward Lewins is credible, then Fox knew of the contacts with revolutionary France, if not the details. When Fitzgerald admitted that their plans
involved Irish independence, Fox replied:'Good God... do nothing without
being certain.'75Even after the rebellion Fox continued to sympathise and
associate with O'Connor. He protested:'I have not a heart to meet a man in
distress whom I once knew when he was worthy of esteem and not take
notice of him.'76
The outbreak of the rebellion and the involvement of Fitzgerald and
O'Connor did not dissuade Fox from continuing to embroil himself in Irish
affairs.Although technically Fox had seceded from parliament, he made a
number of Commons speeches in 1798 that were harshly critical of Pitt's
repressive Irish policy. He also sought to intercede on behalf of the imprisoned Lord Edward Fitzgerald. But his pleas and the intervention of the
prince of Wales and Richmond were ineffectual, and Fitzgerald died in custody. The Foxite opposition did not raise in the Commons the issue of
71Burketo Fitzwilliam, 20 Nov. 1796 (The correspondence of Edmund Burke, ed.
p. 139.
74Elliott,Partners in revolution, p. 211.
75Quotedibid.,p. 212.
1 Jan.1803(Thecorrespon76ColonelMcMahonto the dukeof Northumberland,
dence of George, prince of Wales, 1770-1812, ed. Arthur Aspinall (8 vols, London,
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
185
Fitzgerald's death, but they did attack Pitt on the more general issue of the
rebellion, which they argued had been caused by Pitt's 'tyranny'. Fox later
claimed that no approaches were made by the Irish to France, nor were
there proposals for separation 'until every petition for peaceful redress of
grievances was spurned and rejected'.77He also attacked the brutal tactics
used to stifle the rebellion. On 22 June 1798 Fox introduced a motion calling for an immediate halt to'the system of coercion ...enforced in Ireland,
with a rigour shocking to humanity'. He referred in particular to the
employment of 'scourges and other tortures ... for the purpose of extorting
confession, a practice justly held in abhorrence in every civilised part of the
world'.78His correspondence indicates that he continued to have some sympathy for the captured leaders Oliver Bond, Thomas Addis Emmet and
Arthur O'Connor.79
The Foxites' reaction to the rebellion was not welcomed in the Irish parliament. The British opposition's insinuation that the Irish government had
been to blame for the rebellion made Fox, Moira and Holland distinctly
unpopular. Fox, of course, had been careful to distinguish the Irish government from the parliament. Indeed, he praised the post-1782 Irish parliament, arguing that its pacification of the country had not been completely
successful because its benign influence was being 'counteracted by the influence of the executive government and of the British cabinet'80
Yet popular opinion did not differentiate between attacks on Pitt's
repression and sympathy for the United Irishmen. British politicians - perhaps justifiably - jumped to similar conclusions. Edward Cooke argued for
clemency for the leaders of the United Irishmen, on the grounds that,
when all the CapitalTraitors,Emmet,O'Connor,MacNevin[sic]etc. were to come
forward,confess themselvesconspiratorsand traitorsand engagedfor above two
yearsin a correspondencewithFrance.Whatan overthrowwouldsucha confession
be to all the Lord Moiras,Mr Foxes,Duke of Bedfords,JudgeBullers,Maidstone
Juriesetc.81
In fairness, Fox was more interested in justice than Irish radicalism.At the
same time, the rebellion pushed him closer to Grattan and the moderate
Irish Whigs.He gave a speech in the Whig Club in late 1798 in which he compared himself to Grattan and proposed a toast to 'Henry Grattan, and the
friends of liberty and moderation in Ireland'.82But perhaps his best defence
at this point was his disinterest. Fox had not flung himself fully into the
debate. Apart from his appearance as a witness for O'Connor, and his isolated Commons speeches, he was content to remain on the sidelines. In spite
of the critical situation in Ireland, he was unwilling to abandon his commit77Quotedin Smith, Whig principles, p. 263.
78Cobbett,
Parl.hist.,xxxiii,1516(22 June1798).
79Foxto Denis O'Bryen,2 Sept.1798(B.L.,Fox papers,Add. MS47566,f.21);Fox
to O'Bryen,Sept.1798(ibid.,f.22).
80The speeches of the Right Honourable Charles James Fox in the House of
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
186
IrishHistoricalStudies
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
187
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
188
IrishHistoricalStudies
96Ibid.
"101On
18February
1806Foxhadto denyin theCommons
thatit washisintention
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
POWELL-
189
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
190
IrishHistoricalStudies
administrationwas governedby many of the same feelings,that underpinnedhis suspicionof GeorgeIII and the double-cabinetthat supposedly
consisted of CharlesJenkinson,John Robinson and Lord Mansfield.In
otherwords,he blamedthe Castlefor the apparenterosionof the independent power of parliament.Indeed,it is surelynot a coincidencethat Fox's
betenoire of Irishpolitics,JohnBeresford,was a regularcorrespondentof
Jenkinsonand Robinson.Justas the removalof the double-cabinetwas a
cure-allfor the Rockinghams,
so Fox saw the malignancyat the heartof the
Castleas the explanationfor the failureof Catholicemancipationand parliamentaryreform,the cause of publicdisaffection,and ultimatelythe key
factorin explainingthe rebellionof 1798.
Consistency,even a kind of linear development,was not absent from
Fox's thinkingon Ireland.The FrenchRevolution,a momentousevent in
Fox'spoliticallife, did not so muchmarka shift in his views as a shrinking
of the numberof his obviouspoliticalallies.In Irelandtherewerefew membeis of the Protestantinterestwho were willingto associatewithhim as the
leader of a minorityoppositionpartythat backed Catholicemancipation.
Thushe becameincreasinglyconnectedwithIrishradicalsandrepublicans.
His almost unswervingcommitmentto Catholicrelief - so offensive to
manyProtestants,particularlyafter 1798 - was one of the few elementsof
Fox'sIrishthinkingthat was unaffectedby his ambitionand opportunism.
His suspicionof the arbitrarypowerof the stateandhis loyaltyto hisfriends
andrelativescan be includedin the samecategory,leadinghimto take a far
more sympatheticview of the rebelsof 1798thandid manyof his allies.
Alexander Haliday,a representativeof the Irish patriot leader Lord
Charlemontin Belfast,assertedthat 'An EnglishWhigis only a Whigfor
England,but a Torywithrespectto all her dependencysand connections.'104
However,the rathermore complexpicturepresentedhere indicatesthat
Fox was, strictly speaking,neither a Whig for England nor a Whig for
Ireland.In facthe took a muchbroaderview.He was a Whigforparliament
and for the libertyof the individual.More important,he was a Whig for
empire,and as such his policies were dominatedby concernboth for the
superintendingpowerof the metropolisandfor the welfareof its colonies.
MARTYNJ. POWELL
This content downloaded from 143.117.17.186 on Mon, 11 Jan 2016 14:39:49 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions